CONFLICT OF INTERESTS¾ PARTNERSHIPS¾ WITHDRAWAL FROM EMPLOYMENT¾It
is unethical for a lawyer, without the defendant's consent, to continue to represent a
plaintiff in a lawsuit after becoming a partner in the law practice with another lawyer
who formerly represented the defendant in investigating and handling the claim out of
which the lawsuit arose.

Lawyer B investigates a personal-injury claim against his client, has some contact with
the claimant (a woman who is totally disabled and financially destitute), but makes no
settlement offer, and later, before suit is filed, quits representing the client against
whom the claim was made. The claimant, after employing and discharging two other
attorneys, finally employs Lawyer A, who files suit for her against B's former client.

About a year later, the case not having been reached for trial, Lawyers A and B become
partners in the law practice; and, sensing a possible conflict of interests, Lawyer A,
with the claimant's consent, refers the case to two other attorneys, each of whom in turn
hands the case back to Lawyer A before trial because of the likelihood of an appeal.
Lawyer A concludes that it will be extremely difficult to find another attorney who will
accept the claimant's case and that he should proceed with the trial himself unless it
would be unethical for him to do so. Under such circumstances, and in view of his
partner's prior representation of the defendant and investigation of the claim, would it
be unethical for Lawyer A to proceed with the case?

Opinion

Canon 6, which makes it unethical to represent
conflicting interests except by express consent of all concerned, forbids the subsequent
acceptance of employment from others in matters adversely affecting any interest of the
client with respect to which confidence has been reposed. Under Canon 34, a lawyer's duty to preserve his client's
confidence outlasts his employment. Clearly, Lawyer B's duty to the defendant, his former
client, would make it unethical for him to represent the claimant except with the consent
of both parties. When Lawyer A and Lawyer B became partners, Lawyer A likewise became
disqualified. See Opinion 259 ( March, 1963).
Under Canon 34, Lawyer A should not continue employment when he discovers that his
partner's obligation to his former client could prevent the performance of the firm's full
duty to either the claimant or the defendant.

On the other hand, Lawyer A owes a duty to his client. the claimant. Canon 40 states that the right of a lawyer to withdraw
from employment, once assumed, arises only from good cause, and that he should not throw
up the unfinished task to the detriment of his client, except for reasons of honor or
self-respect, but that a lawyer may be warranted in withdrawing, on due notice to the
client, if he finds himself incapable of conducting the case effectively. It is the
opinion of the committee that, in the situation presented, the conflict of interests and
the duty to Lawyer B's former client out-weigh Lawyer A's duty to the claimant and that it
would be unethical for Lawyer A to continue with the case without the express consent of
the defendant. If such consent cannot be obtained, Lawyer A should continue his efforts to
find another competent lawyer who will accept the case. We do not decide the question of
procedural disqualification, which is for the courts. (9- 0.)